By M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainants’ case is that the respondents issued a notice dt. 26.5.08 informing that revenue recovery actions would be initiated against the complainant to recover an arrears of Rs.31,879/- in respect of the electricity connection No.16257 which was disconnected and a notice for dismantle was also issued. But the complainants’ firm was transferred to the Jaihind Market building on 24.5.1982. So it is suspected that the notice is issued for the dues in respect of the room in the UKM building where the complainants’ firm was functioning. The complainants’ firm had no dues to remit. So the disputed notice is illegal and the amount called for is time barred also. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The counter statements are that the respondents issued a notice dt. 26.5.08 to the complainants. The electricity connection vide consumer No.16257A is still in the name of the chairman of the complainants’ firm and there exists dues. So the notice issued for revenue recovery action after dismantling the connection as per rules. The complainants did not inform that the firm had transferred to Jaihind Market building on 24.5.1982. The arrear amount related to the additional bills issued for excess electricity consumed by them. They had to pay Rs.28,420/- upto 3/2001 and Rs.279/- for the period 2001-02. The electric charges as per the spot bills from 2002 to 2008 were also defaulted by the complainants. The complainants are liable to pay the dues. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant liable to pay the amount as per the Ext. P1
notice?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P3 and the oral testimony by the PW1. No evidence has been adduced by the respondents.
5. Points: The complainant has stated that their firm had transferred to the Jaihind Market building on 24.5.1982. There were no arrears in favour of them. So the complainants are not liable to pay the amount shown the Ext. P1 notice. However the respondents have stated that the complainants did not inform them about the transfer of their firm to the Jaihind market building. The complainants had defaulted the additional bills issued to collect the electricity charges for the excess electricity consumed by the complainants. They had also defaulted the spot bills issued from 2002 to 2008.
6. Ext. P1 is the disputed notice issued by the respondents. The complainants have stated that their firm had transferred to the Jaihind market building on 25.4.1982. But the respondents have stated that the transfer had not been informed to them. The complainant should have informed the respondents about the transfer and an application to disconnect the connection should have been submitted to the respondents. While cross examining the PW1 has deposed that “chairman (In Malayalam words) notice
connection (In Malayalam words)
connection (In Malayalam words) chairman
(In Malayalam words .”
The complainants have stated that their firm had transferred on 24.5.1982. But it is shown in the Ext. P3 that they had paid rent for the month of August 1982 in respect of the room in the UKM building. This is quite contradictory to their statement. So the complainants are liable to pay the amount as per the Ext. P1 notice.
7. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 2nd day of January 2012.
